Compare the following rationing systems: Prudent Person, Fair Innings, and Natural Life Span

In Norman Daniels' "prudential lifespan" account, the individual reasons toward a prudent allotment of health care resources across the different stages of his or her life. It is not an issue of "us against them," but rather what I would choose for my own life. The assumption is that the prudent decision of the individual would similarly be considered prudent by fair-minded participants of a fair deliberative process. The Fair Innings argument holds that there is a finite span of years that we consider a reasonable lifetime. This argument is that everyone should be provided an equal chance to have a full set of fair innings to reach their appropriate life expectancy. Once they have reached it, they have received their full entitlement. Daniel Callahan's life span argument states that a rationing scheme is necessary to stave off the ever-widening gap between resources and our expanding health needs caused by the flaws in our current system, as well as the increased needs generated by an aging population. Callahan argues that a natural life span is one that ends with a natural death and that this occurs at the end of the life cycle. Using this theory, one could imagine allocating resources for oneself over the whole of one's life.